No, there is no way to know. More: professionals in the field of interest are not generally volunteering their spare time to ID observations on iNat. If you aren’t interested in developing an ability to assess IDs yourself, I suggest you offer no response to other IDs, other than to withdraw your ID if asked. You certainly shouldn’t agree with IDs based on the the perceived expert status of an identifier.
17 Likes
However good your equipment is, unless you have some idea what you are looking at, quite different things can look painfully similar. Even if you do know what you’re looking at, mere similarity with taxon photos doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t another very similar species, possibly not yet in the CV, that you may not be able to distinguish from given photos.
My summary of an answer to your initial question would be:
- If you doubt someone’s ID, ask them questions - as has been said, anyone who’s disagreeing with an ID ought to be able to explain why.
- If a disagreeing ID looks reasonable or you don’t feel qualified to decide, withdraw your ID. That gets out of their way and leaves the community to argue out the ID if necessary. Definitely don’t agree unless you can provide and explain your ID independently.
20 Likes
If you upload enough observations in specific taxa you’ll get to know the experts. If the guy who is my state’s expert on Drosera IDs my Drosera sighting, I’ll be pretty confident he’s correct. A friend is a whiz at IDing lots of plants, but she’ll put detailed notes of WHY it is that plant. If you ask an IDer why they IDed something as whatever they IDed it as, someone confident in IDing that taxa will be able to tell you why it is what it is.
4 Likes
Agreeing with others here, it is advised not to just accept what the iNat computervision suggests down to the species level unless it’s ‘easy’ things with few lookalikes (many mammals, birds). The computervision will usually provide a coarser suggestion at the top, e.g., ‘We’re pretty sure this is in genus xyz’ - that would be more appropriate to select if you do not have the expertise to corroborate the species-level suggestion(s). Otherwise a potentially incorrectly-identified organism could sit at species-level for a while, providing a false data point, and experts will have to come to you and ask what your reasoning was for IDing it as that species, which makes our jobs harder and uses more of the time we could be combing unidentified observations en masse.
Also echoing others that you should not agree with another user’s ID yourself unless you can independently verify the ID, which it sounds like you cannot. That can potentially erroneously bump observations to Research Grade, the level at which records are used for scientific research. If you are photographing vertebrate wildlife then many qualified identifiers should provide accurate IDs quickly, and there’s no need to throw your hat into the ring.
Others are correct in that delineating ‘expert’ is difficult, as it’s subjective (self-appointed, or by peers? at what geographic scale, and for which taxa? would a badge show up just for the taxa they somehow ‘qualify’ for, genus by genus?) and can get convoluted and dubious quickly. Ideally experts have some qualifications in their bio, though I know in my field many do not and some don’t even use their full names, but ultimately the best protection is just getting multiple IDs on an observation; that’s the benefit of iNaturalist’s community-based system. A bad ID usually gets overruled, and if the photo or organism isn’t IDable, then it will eventually sit at the most precise level it can be.
8 Likes
on iNat we are all equal. You will not see a ’badge for an expert’.
if you are going to put YOUR name on your ID, it is on you to do the research you need to convince yourself. The nearest to your Badge for an Expert are comments like the one I read yesterday - has 3 thorns at each node = This species. That is a clue I can see, and support, and see on the taxon picture … then hopefully the observer has, by accident or on purpose, an in focus picture of Here be Three Thorns.
21 Likes
Rather at honest Unknown than flat out wrong - when THREE people have to agree. If identifiers are unlucky and someone has already agreed with wrong - then FIVE identifiers will learn to recognise those ‘identifiers’ in future.
If in doubt, don’t (ID)
First do no harm - Unknown or broad is better than narrowly wrong.
7 Likes
If you don’t know which features discriminate between species, you won’t take photos that are useful for ID, no matter how much or how little your camera cost.
22 Likes
Not to worry. Elderly identifiers will decide which observer, and which obs, are worth their time.
3 Likes
Hello everyone. As a moderator, I’d like to remind everyone that forum guidelines ask we all assume people mean well. Disagreement and differing priorities are fine, but I expect everyone to act civilly and there are a number of posts here that are heated and bordering on inappropriate.
As an individual: @TheJungleExplorer Identifiers on iNaturalist are unpaid volunteers, coming from all backgrounds. If you continue your process of uploading images, adding the first Computer Vision ID that looks plausible, and then sitting back, that’s fine. I concur with the general consensus that you will have a better time if you assume that identifiers are coming from a place of knowledge.
As scientists, the best measure of truth is evidence. If you are presented with an argument or information that counters your position, you should either investigate, or admit you don’t know by withdrawing your ID (to a higher level without disagreeing, or entirely)
iNaturalist has made a conscious choice to prioritize a democratic process with checks and measures to ensure accuracy. Many studies have concluded that for most species, ID accuracy on iNaturalist is within the same range as in museum archival collections.
I have a question for you, though. You are assuming that the CV is an expert and endorsing its estimate by backing it with your ID. Why do you trust a computer model over human curation?
23 Likes
As a person coming to iNat later in life as well, I agree that this should bring you joy. It should not require you to spend hours learning taxonomy (class, order, family, genus, etc.) unless you want to do so.
In short, other than checking the person’s profile and/or how many submissions/ID’s (in general or specifically related to the species in question) they have made there; it is not possible to know what specific expertise a person making IDs has. By requiring multiple ID’s that agree for a submission to reach research grade, there is a system of checks and balances in place. It’s certainly not perfect, but it seems to work most of the time.
Personally, I have found that the most disagreements/issues with others confirming my original identifications came when I (initially) leaned heavily on using the CV suggestions for some of my observations, which then turned out to be incorrect, even though I also looked closely and thought they matched my observation/pic. The CV is not always right and some species look really similar unless one knows some key detail to tell them apart AND that is in the photo you submitted.
When I learned that it was perfectly fine, in fact preferred, to just back off of my identification to a level that I was comfortable with - the final ID to a species (or subspecies) level would usually work itself out within the iNat community and I would learn some things along the way.
So, I would encourage you to ID at the level you are sure of, which will get better over time. It’s fine to check the CV suggestions and to use them if you are confident with them. If not, ID to the level you are sure of, and let the iNat community to get it to a final ID (which can take awhile - there are a lot of pics needing IDs!!!). You don’t have to know whether you are IDing at the genus, family, order, etc. level. Just do what you are comfortable with. I wrote out the following when I was providing some info for some college students.
I shared a pic of a rattlesnake that was on my front stairs one day. I noted that it could be ID’d as any of the following: Animals or Reptiles or Snakes or Rattlesnakes or Northern Pacific Rattlesnake - whatever level you are sure of is fine. At the time I submitted it to iNat, I knew it was a rattlesnake, but not what kind, so I ID’d it as ‘rattlesnakes.’ Very quickly others gave their IDs and (fortunately) all agreed as to what kind of rattlesnake it was. Given that there were multiple people agreeing, I was reasonably confident in the ID and learned something myself.
Using iNat should be fun. I really hope you keep your curiosity and interest in wildlife photography going. While you may not know the expertise of any particular person making an ID, things usually do sort themselves out.
13 Likes
It took me a while to realize that I should not just accept the Computer Vision suggestion–that I should only do that if I knew for sure, from experience, what the organism is. And even then, I realized that what I thought I knew “for sure” wasn’t always correct. It comes back to that adage that “You don’t know what you don’t know.”
I would like to recommend something that I found extremely helpful: iNat’s recently concluded ID-a-thon https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/id-a-thon
For me, the biggest light was shed, finally, on what the heck is the difference between dicots and monocots. I had read the info that goes along with each classification and, still unsure, ended up IDing a lot of Unknown plants as simply Plants or Vascular Plants. Now I can take it at least one step further!
Long story short, start with a higher level ID–the lowest that you can confidently defend. Then wait for TWO identifiers to agree–that takes it to Research Grade.
9 Likes
One of the browser extensions that you can use adds the number of leading IDs a person has done for that taxon. That can help you decide on who is likely to have the expertise. Then I look at what at what they identify. If they obviously ID a lot of different species within a certain category, they probably have some expertise.
If I’m not 100% sure but I think the CV is probably right, I use the something from one or two levels above. If I am in Identify mode on the website I will sometimes look at the Visually Similar to see where that leads me.
3 Likes
Your profile nicely shows what I was going to say - retired from this is how I earn a living to iNat is what interests me. If using the - I’m old card - we have 3 in their 80s and 35 in their 70s. Almost 10% vs the digital native decades. Include the recently retired 60s makes almost 20% of that self-selected group of forum users.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/poll-how-old-are-you-your-vote-is-not-public/60869
2 Likes
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I do. I can often get to that level pretty confidently.
If someone completely disagrees, I usually check their profile, and if they have something linked (like a university or something) I go check them out there. It’s more out of curiosity than verifying, but I’ve occasionally seen something that relates to a thing I’ve been wondering about. DMing them about it has usually led to interesting conversations.
3 Likes
Once you spend some time on the platform and have added observations regularly, you’ll start picking up who knows what, and who you can trust with IDs etc. You can also tag prominent members in your area, generally they’ll know who to tag if the can’t help, and you ca learn from that
3 Likes
Hi
It sounds like you’re enjoying the photography but not the frustration of trying to ID, so I suggest you do just that - focus on the photography and uploading the best photos you can.
Here are a few guidelines that I hope will help you:
-
If the CV (Computer Vision) doesn’t give you a definite “We’re certain it’s this”, then don’t select one. E.g you have a few lichen observations where you’ve chosen very specific IDs like “Orange Atoms” and “Pom Pom Shadow Lichen”. Unless you have a lot of lichen knowledge, I’d advise that you ID it much more generally. Instead of selecting an ID from the list, type “lichens” and it will give you much more general options. I put all lichens as “common lichens” because that is as much as MY knowledge can confirm. Likewise, unless the CV gives me a clear ID, I’ll often ID things as “Birds”, “Plants”, “Fungi and Lichens”, “Insects” etc.
-
NEVER agree with someone else’s ID unless you are certain YOU can identify it as that species, even if the person giving the ID is a world expert! (If you like, you can choose to withdraw your original ID, but it’s not necessary.)
-
Don’t worry about whether or not your observations get to Research Grade. Sometimes it takes a long time for another person with the right knowledge to come along and say “Yes, I also think it’s xxxx”. That’s okay! Don’t agree with an ID just to make it research grade.
-
Focus on taking photos that provide enough evidence for a good identification. Eg. here’s a good guide for taking mushroom photos: https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/3531-documenting-mushrooms . Providing evidence to allow for definite IDs is MUCH more important than trying to ID it yourself.
I hope this advice helps. I’m going to look at your observations and add my own IDs to the ones where I think you might have relied a little too much on what the CV said. They’re likely to be very general, and we’ll rely on people with more knowledge than either of us to narrow it down more precisely.
11 Likes
I agree with you, mostly. I just think that a lot of what goes on in the world can be classified as obsessive pedanticism and gatekeeping. I once got banned from a reptile forum for posting a 4K close-up highly detailed video of a snake that started an insuring debate among the experts about whether it was this type of snake or that type. Eventually, the forum expert jumped in and stated that the differences between the two snakes is so minute that only a hands-on inspection of it be a leading expert in this particular field could determine the exact ID. I made the mistake of trying to add a little logic and reason to the discussion by suggesting that; “If the differences were so extremely minute that it is nearly impossible to differentiate, does it really make a difference?” Permaban! How dare I introduce some logic into the conversation of a bunch of obsessed gatekeepers!
The world is getting to a point where nobody can know anything for certain because everyone is so obsessed with absolute minute pedantic perfection that no truth about anything can be established. So, in an age where we more information than ever, we know less than we ever did before. This mad obsession to validate oneself by dedicating oneself completely to atomic level of accuracy and condemning and rejecting everyone else who is not willing to join one’s obsession and sacrifice all else on that alter (gatekeeping), is becoming a huge blockade to advancing. We are becoming a society that has global Analysis Paralysis for fear of making a tiny error.
I am a pragmatic realist, as you may have already deduced. If it is good enough to be functional, and does not negatively affect the outcome, it is good enough for me. I once road in a truck that had a 2-litter Coca-Cola bottle as a gas tank. Not the safest setup, but it got me where I need to go, and I thought it was fascinating. Got a video if you want to see it.
I am the kind of person who, while all others are arguing about how they should go about getting the job done, I have already completed the job. I once was awakened by a large explosion in my neighborhood. I rushed out in nothing but my pants and found a house, two blocks away, engulfed in flames, too late for me to do anything to save the inhabitants. By the time the fire department arrived on the scenes, I had already investigated the cause of the fire, knew how many people were still in the house, and eliminated false potential causes. I determined that the 21-year-old son had murdered his mother, father, and grandmother, and set the house on fire, to cover the murders up. The police and fire marshal disagreed with me and said the fire was an accident and was caused by a natural gas leak (which I had eliminated as a potential cause because there was no natural gas service to the house, the owners had recently converted to all electric). Even my own father, who was formerly a police officer and FBI agent, argue that I was wrong. The son was, later, caught, convicted and put to death for his crimes. That is how I roll.
1 Like
You may not realize this, but scientists favorite thing to do is argue with other scientists. It may seem like pedantic and gatekeepy (and in the case of that particular reptile forum, it sounds like it may have been legitimately so,) but if you’re looking at a conversation between a couple of scientific-minded folks with passion about the same area of study, what they’re talking about might honestly seem like the most pedantic thing on the planet.
Like I literally got into a long conversation yesterday with one of my friends about the possible translations and interpretations of the latin word ‘albido’ in an old fungal description that was only published in latin, not english. It was an extremely pedantic but honestly necessary conversation to have.
I don’t see how striving for accuracy is a bad thing. I don’t expect it from newbies in the field - I strive to celebrate what they do learn and figure out, and I try to be positive and gently correct mistakes I see. I ALSO expect people to do the same for me - learning is an iterative process and true wisdom comes from acknowledging that none of us can know everything. It’s not that we know less that before, it’s that we recognize how much there is we still could learn.
Saying ‘I don’t know’ is a perfectly okay statement. Clinging to dogmatic ‘facts’ that may have been superceded by new information isn’t scientific.
This rolls into why there is no expert badge, and why I would wholly NOT support adding one. Things like that can lead to people putting someone on a pedestal, into thinking that they can Do No Wrong. This is already something that happens with certain identifiers on this site (through no fault of their own, simply by virtue of them being extremely active or because they have social media platforms that give them a broader audience than is typical for an iNat identifier.) The appeal to authority fallacy is definitely something that we as a community should strive to avoid, and adding expert badges would do the exact opposite of that.
Anyway.
To answer your original question (or at least, get to the core of it -) you don’t need to vette the expertise of everyone iding your stuff. Just put your initial ID in, and if you yourself aren’t confident enough to be sure when given different suggestions, you don’t have to agree with them. Honestly, a lot of times with taxa I’m less familiar with I’ll end up simply withdrawing my initial ID if I get a dissenting one, instead of agreeing with the user. Remember, the IDs represent YOUR opinion, so simply agreeing with someone who you think is an expert really isn’t the way identifications are supposed to function on the site.
18 Likes
“So, in an age where we more information than ever, we know less than we ever did before.”
This is exactly correct and people need to learn to be ok with this. Science isn’t convenient. It doesn’t have to be welcoming to people who are unwilling to accept this. You’re more than welcome to continue to upload great pictures of lots of cool organisms, but you also have to accept that identifying them may not be possible from any images, it may rely only on calls, geographic range, or only DNA; or it may even be a new or undescribed species for which we have no label yet.
The “I’m right and I don’t care about accuracy” attitude is off-putting and I’m sure I speak for many unpaid identifiers on here who dedicate thousands of thankless hours and decades of study and experience all in the name of data accuracy when I say it’s the direct attitude none of us want to deal with when identifying observations. It is completely acceptable to take a picture of a snake and ID it as “snake” and then leave it for others to figure out. There’s no need to “accept” an ID you can’t personally make and if making a single click to read someone’s profile is a “ton of research” for you, why bother spending the time and effort to ID your own observations beyond a higher, more obvious level of taxonomy (ie. “snake”, “reptile”, “animal”, etc.)?
16 Likes
I wouldn’t say that. We’ve always had more unknowns than knowns at any given period in history. But at present we do know more of what we don’t know. Knowing what we don’t know is a form of knowledge.
We can’t know with certainty if an IDer has made a correct ID in every case. Experts make mistakes. Unlike a research museum where perhaps only one person has provided an ID (correct or not) on a specimen, iNat records are open to examination and evaluation by many individuals. It can take time for a record to be examined by multiple individuals with various levels of expertise, but it does happen. In most cases, an accurate ID (perhaps not to species, but close enough) will happen if the evidence provided is good enough.
9 Likes